| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:43:48 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: check && lockdep_no_validate (Was: lockdep: Introduce
wait-type checks)
On 01/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 01/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 06:54:48PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > > @@ -1939,7 +1939,8 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
> > > * Only non-recursive-read entries get new dependencies
> > > * added:
> > > */
> > > - if (hlock->read != 2) {
> > > + if (hlock->read != 2 &&
> > > + hlock->instance->key != &__lockdep_no_validate__) {
> > > if (!check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next,
> > > distance, trylock_loop))
> > > return 0;
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, you are quite right indeed;
>
> Thanks!
>
> > although I would write it like:
> >
> > if (hlock->read != 2 && hlock->check == 2)
> >
> > because the __lockdep_no_validate__ thing forces the ->check value to 1.
>
> Agreed, hlock->check == 2 looks better. But this connects to another
> patch I sent which removes hlock->check...
>
> OK, I'll wait for review on that patch, then resend this one with
> ->check or __lockdep_no_validate__ depending on the result.
And I still think that we should try to remove hlock->check, but
please forget about this for the moment. I'll try to send some
patches later in any case.
OK, lets suppose we do the change above using ->key or ->check,
doesn't matter. This will fix the already discussed pattern:
static DEFINE_MUTEX(m1);
static DEFINE_MUTEX(m2);
static DEFINE_MUTEX(mx);
lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&mx);
// m1 -> mx -> m2
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_lock(&mx);
mutex_lock(&m2);
mutex_unlock(&m2);
mutex_unlock(&mx);
mutex_unlock(&m1);
// m2 -> m1 ; should trigger the warning
mutex_lock(&m2);
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m2);
before this change lockdep can't detect the trivial deadlock.
But with or without this change the following code
static DEFINE_MUTEX(m1);
static DEFINE_MUTEX(mx);
lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&mx);
// m1 -> mx
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_lock(&mx);
mutex_unlock(&mx);
mutex_unlock(&m1);
// mx -> m1 ; should trigger the warning ???
mutex_lock(&mx);
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&mx);
doesn't trigger the warning too. This is correct because
lockdep_set_novalidate_class() means, well, no-validate.
The question is: do we really want to avoid all validations?
Why lockdep_set_novalidate_class() was added? Unlees I missed
something the problem is that (say) __driver_attach() can take
the "same" lock twice, drivers/base/ lacks annotations.
Perhaps we should change the meaning of lockdep_set_novalidate_class?
(perhaps with rename). What do you think about the patch below?
With this patch __lockdep_no_validate__ means "automatically nested",
although I have to remind I can hardly understand the code I am
trying to change ;)
Oleg.
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 576ba75..844d25d 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2515,9 +2515,6 @@ mark_held_locks(struct task_struct *curr, enum mark_type mark)
BUG_ON(usage_bit >= LOCK_USAGE_STATES);
- if (hlock_class(hlock)->key == __lockdep_no_validate__.subkeys)
- continue;
-
if (!mark_lock(curr, hlock, usage_bit))
return 0;
}
@@ -3067,8 +3064,15 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()))
return 0;
- if (lock->key == &__lockdep_no_validate__)
- check = 1;
+ if (lock->key == &__lockdep_no_validate__) {
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = curr->lockdep_depth; --i >= 0; ) {
+ hlock = curr->held_locks + i;
+ if (hlock->instance->key == lock->key)
+ goto nested;
+ }
+ }
if (subclass < NR_LOCKDEP_CACHING_CLASSES)
class = lock->class_cache[subclass];
@@ -3106,6 +3110,7 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
if (depth) {
hlock = curr->held_locks + depth - 1;
if (hlock->class_idx == class_idx && nest_lock) {
+nested:
if (hlock->references)
hlock->references++;
else
@@ -3282,8 +3287,9 @@ static int match_held_lock(struct held_lock *hlock, struct lockdep_map *lock)
* References, but not a lock we're actually ref-counting?
* State got messed up, follow the sites that change ->references
* and try to make sense of it.
+ * FIXME: s/0/novalidate/ ?
*/
- if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!hlock->nest_lock))
+ if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(0 && !hlock->nest_lock))
return 0;
if (hlock->class_idx == class - lock_classes + 1)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists